#1
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
quick survey:
hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon. why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts? jb |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
Jim Beam writes:
http://www.jimbeam.com/jb_web/ quick survey: hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon. why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts? I see you have a hard time asking the question. How about starting with: "Do you feel free to criticize a piece of equipment that you haven't tried." The answer is yes. You don't have to try everything to form an opinion, especially if you can cite concrete reasons for that opinion. An example is, using non-pneumatic tires to avoid flats. I have not tried such tires since the days of riding a tricycle and an American Flyer wagon and have never used them on a bicycle, yet I feel competent in explaining why you wouldn't want to use them. Evidence abounds. Similarly, I can advise against recumbents for general bicycling, for transportation, touring and riding trails, as I define it from my own experience. This in spite of persistent claims by their advocates of the recumbent's superiority over conventional bicycles. Evidence abounds. There are scientific analyses and history to spare us the task of incrementally testing every piece of equipment that appears on the market. These, together with observation of others who willingly perform such tests, enable us to make decisions about these things. I would expect you to understand this since you put yourself forth as a scientific person. Apparently you are sensitive to posing this question since you have been argumentative here on many issues. You dodge and weave as you pose the "question" which appears as an only slightly veiled criticism... backing into the subject. So my question is: At what school did you pass English, and is your spelling a revolt against what was taught there? Jobst Brandt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
jim beam wrote:
quick survey: hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? Certainly. I'll always feel free to criticize components which purport to solve non-existent problems, and are less durable, more expensive, and incompatible with existing standards. further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon. why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts? In many cases I'm sure you could attribute it to what Jobst Brandt calls MAS, or "Male Answer Syndrome". -- Benjamin Lewis Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants, today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing. -- Dave Barry |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
jim beam wrote:
why do people do it? I don't know. Why do you use different names in every ng you post to? Art Harris |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:24:51 GMT, jim beam may have
said: quick survey: hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? Sure. Sometimes, the problems are so obvious that it would be not just a waste of money, but utterly counterproductive to buy a piece of gear just to confirm that it's crap. Every sale of such an item would, after all, reward the seller for stocking something that wasn't worth buying. If it *is* worth buying, it's the seller's job to present a convincing argument in its favor, not the buyer's responsibility to spend first and discover later...even though that is often what really happens. further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon. If the facts are known and not erroneous, where's the problem? On this one, you'll have to cite examples to get an opinion, not just generalize. why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts? Simplest answer, because they value their own opinions and experiences enough to feel that they have an argument to support. Example: My own experience with powder coatings has been abysmal, and I make no bones about the fact that I will not recommend the process for the majority of potential applications. Others have had different results, and have different opinions in consequence. This makes neither them nor me globally right or wrong, but it contributes to the information pool that may allow someone to make an informed decision when both sides are presented. -- My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an
almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them. On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote: While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a product (e.g. solid tires) or a concept (e.g. the current industry standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these forums, I have yet to see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should not ride a recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to personal preference. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
jim beam wrote:
hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? Heck yeah. Machines are machines, after all. They'd never exist to begin with if they weren't predicated on fundamental engineering principles. Those priciples are knowable, and it is possible to build a level of familiarity with them such that one can make good assumptions based on a few pertinent data. Bikes being mature technology, there are very few new developments that aren't analogous to other sound or not-so-sound innovations of times past. Those earlier trials (and errors) are an excellent guide by which to judge "new" ideas. Previously unavailable materials don't change all the design guidelines that have come before, they just introduce some different values into the old formulae. Chalo Colina |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
"jim beam" wrote in message ... quick survey: hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone? further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon. why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts? jb It's my opinion that the internet allows anonymous people to feel good about rendering an opinion as a fact, and not have to back it up or defend it. I think we all like to feel that we're an expert about something and there are millions of us that like, enjoy, and are passionate about bikes. We don't know how to say "in my opinion", and "I read an article", and on and so forth. We spew hearsay, fifth-hand anecdotes and ill-considered opinions as facts that all should believe.There are less than a handful of people that post here that I would absolutely trust what they say as being based of facts and expertise. Peter Chisholm and Sheldon Brown are two of them. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ok, hands up
"swamprun" wrote in message news I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them. Actually, you can say that about almost anything you care to name: wheels, disc brakes, 15/16db spokes, carbon rear triangles, compact frames, Brand X bikes, and on, and on... Mike (not a recumbent rider) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
hands and neck bothering me. Geometry? | curt | General | 14 | March 8th 04 03:27 AM |